The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Most of the discussion about the financial crisis has focused on a question that won’t go away: could the fall of Lehman have been prevented? For many this was the cardinal error that sparked the crisis. Others believe that Lehman was the precipitating factor, but that the financial system was so highly leveraged that something or other would eventually have broken its back.

We will never know what would have happened if Lehman had not failed.

And this is the reason the EU will not allow Greece to default.

Originally Posted by astralis

And it’s clear that those ctions saved the American—and thus the global—economy from total collapse.

Only because ppl are not rational when it comes to moments like this.

Originally Posted by astralis

The U.S. government’s actions stopped the fall. Between the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the massive quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve, markets realized that the government was backstopping the financial system, that credit was beginning to flow again, and that if no one else was going to inject capital into the system, the U.S. government would do so.

All thanks to Gordon Brown for kickstarting it. The other point is it was done on the condition that banks monetise their balance sheets. They got a loan from the govt to keep things going but were required to raise capital as well.

Originally Posted by astralis

In fact, the financial system bounced back so fast that the government will likely recover almost 90 percent of the funds it committed during those months, making this one of the cheapest financial bailouts in history.

Not happened yet tho.

Originally Posted by astralis

But this is the strange case of a success that no one wants to laim.

Because it is sooo against what capitalism is supposed to be about. I guess the theory does not stand when it comes to exceptional circumstances.

One can. Just as one can say with complete authority that Jimmy Carter was a better president than Ronald Reagen.

Okay I did find something outstanding about Jimmy Carter, and he obviously thinks so as well:

Carter: My Charity Work Is 'Superior' to Other Ex-Presidents'

Jimmy Carter says his philanthropic work is "superior" to that of other former presidents, citing his activism on the environment and leadership filling "vacuums in the world."

Carter, in an interview Monday with NBC News, offered several explanations to support his premise, suggesting his charitable work on the world stage has had more impact than that of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the other three members of the world's most exclusive club.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents. Primarily because of the activism and the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on environment and things of that kind," said Carter, who is promoting a new book. "We're right in the midst of the constant daily debate."

He added: "And the Carter Center has decided, under my leadership, to fill vacuums in the world. When the United States won't deal with troubled areas, we go there, and we meet with leaders who can bring an end to a conflict, or an end to a human rights abuse, and so forth. So I feel that I have an advantage over many other former presidents in being involved in daily affairs that have shaped the policies of our nation and the world."

His office issued a brief statement clarifying that the former president meant to say the Carter Center, which he and his wife founded, has given him "superior opportunities to do good," NBC reported.

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to LiveStudent Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Card Debt-What to Do?U.S. Navy limiting use of 'Cyclone' patrol boatsWhat Happens if the Bush Tax Cuts ExpirePresident Changes Tune on Health-Care CostsCarter launched into his assertion after being asked about a photograph, taken shortly before President Obama took office, that showed Obama and the three other living ex-presidents standing close together and looking chummy -- with Carter drifting off to the right side of the frame by himself. Asked whether he felt "apart from the crowd," Carter said he did not.

According to the Carter Center's most recent annual report, the organization has worked since 1982 to resolve conflicts, improve medical care and push for other advances in more than 70 countries -- this includes observing elections in 30 countries, establishing a local health care system in thousands of African communities and teaching better farming techniques to millions across 15 African countries. The Center's annual budget is just over $80 million.

Former President Bill Clinton's Clinton Global Initiative also boasts an impressive resume -- better education for more than 10 million children, 33 million acres of forest protected and safe drinking water for more than 12 million people, among other accomplishments. Clinton and former President George H.W. Bush teamed up to raise donations for nations ravaged by the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Clinton and former President George W. Bush have teamed up to raise donations for earthquake-stricken Haiti.

Both Clinton and Carter have secured the release of American prisoners held in North Korea over the past year.

Clinton told Fox News in an interview Monday that his initiative has raised $57 billion in commitments since 2005.

"And already, the actions in 170 countries have improved the lives of 220 million people. So we're off to a good start," Clinton said.

not foreign imperialism-- nixon was the biggest Imperial President, ie he believed in the primacy of Executive power. he illegally used the FBI and IRS to go after his political enemies, and used the CIA to spy on americans (Operation CHAOS). he tried to take over the legislative power of the purse.

and that's all BEFORE watergate.

i'd imagine for any libertarian he'd probably be the worst president ever.

G.W. would rank up there (although we're too close to his presidency to judge objectively). The only thing "libertarian" he ever practiced was cut taxes. Every other policy he had was the complete antithesis of libertarianism, including large government which G.W. by fact implemented.

My personal opinion:

Great:

George Washington (duh)
John Adams (simply for not doing what was popular - declaring war on France - because he thought the country wasn't ready for it and it was part of why he lost re-election, but when he lost he didn't create a war or skirmish and let up the reigns to Jefferson, which at that time in the world was unique)
James K. Polk (had five election pillars, didn't run for a second term because he'd successfully completed all five in four years)
Abraham Lincoln (a grudging selection by me, but he did what he thought best and succeeded)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (I think a lot of his economic policies are overrated because what really got us out the Depression was World War II buildup, but at least he put forth an effort unlike Hoover; he was right to help out the Allies before the country wanted to go to war and led our country to victory which prepared the country for dominating the last half of the 20th century; negative mark for breaking the Washington two-term convention)
Dwight Eisenhower (other than John Tyler probably the closest president we've ever had to being independent/non-partisan; effective leader in the quiet 1950s)
Ronald Reagan (defeated the Soviets, after the bad run of presidents from 1960-1980 he increased the country's feeling of self-worth for lack of a better phrase, unfortunately like Wilson had health problems in the end although he was still functioning, like Roosevelt and Lincoln also had a few issues but on the whole was good)

Poor:

William Henry Harrison (Henry Clay's puppet that died a month into his term from pneumonia)
John Buchanan (the guy in power that let the Civil War tea leaves ferment under his watch by self-castrating himself; outside of that apparently a completely useless president that spent his career up to that point seeking to be president for president's sake, he more than most historical presidents sounds most like the politicians of today)
Andrew Johnson (dealt with a very hard situation post-Civil War and his impeachment from a hostile Congress that pretty much invented the accusations against him, but he certainly didn't help matters by being incompetent; apparently by the end of his term he governed like Boris Yeltsin did by being a drunk)
Ulysses S. Grant (a puppet of sorts that cowtowed to where the real power in the country was at the time: the Radical Republicans that ran Congress)
Warren G. Harding (job was above him, too dumb to stop the raping of the country and its finances by his cabinet, thankfully died only 2 years into his term)
Herbert Hoover (useless once the Depression started, and then he was in power for another three years)
Richard Nixon (simply for Watergate and paranoia and other imperial bits, he did do some good things though but they're all overshadowed)
Jimmy Carter (job was above him, apparently incredibly arrogant, my dad when thinking of Carter always thinks of the botched Iran hostage rescue where Carter wanted every service involved which my dad says was complete idiocy because they all operate differently)

Overrated:

James Madison (Washington left his successors a letter to not go to war with England, Adams and Jefferson obliged, Madison did not; the war and resulting embargo almost resulted in New England seceding)
Teddy Roosevelt (we talk about government interference into everyday life nowadays, do you realize this guy almost banned football in this country?, huge ego, ran for a third term breaking the Washington two-term convention; how the hell did this guy get put on Rushmore ahead of some of the alternatives?)
John F. Kennedy (this guy has the best-controlled legacy of anyone this side of Reagan compared to what he actually did in office, a case of assassination lionizing someone)

Underrated:

Grover Cleveland (for having the balls and spine to stand up and say no to Congress, something the Republican presidents of the late 1800s never did and is why everyone has a hard time remembering their names)
Gerald Ford (he pardoned Nixon which for the sake of the country going forward was the best thing to do, he did a decent job in a very hard time, he's unfortunately remembered for his gaffes and for being the only un-elected president)
George H.W. Bush (the last president this country had that was more substance than style)

Hard to Rate:

Andrew Jackson (yup)
Woodrow Wilson (had his good sides but had a lot of bad sides too, stubborn as hell and his stubbornness actually harmed the country from a legislative standpoint; a lot of the seeds for World War II could be seen in Wilson's demands at Versailles, too idealistic for his own good; should've abdicated and his vice president should've become president, apparently his vice president was never allowed to see Wilson the last year of his term until Wilson's final day in office and it was only then he realized his massive health problems)

not included for being too close to their presidency to be objective: Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama; although for the last two as it stands currently the job was above them, obviously Obama can change that perception more than G.W. can

The United States is the only nation which would have elected Ronald Reagan as President. And the choice was absolutely right. I cannot see India, or the United Kingdom, elect a head of government because he was solely a popular film personality. I was extremely disappointed not to have seen Michael Dukakis as the President of the United States. He, I believe would have made a President, who would have been remembered.

Please don't forget that Reagan was the Governor of California, a State with an economy greater than most countries. He had been active politically for many years before being elected President.

Being active duty under Reagan was like being a kid in a candy store and a pocket full of $100 bills. We had everything we needed, and more; a mission-ready rate approaching 100% Above all, we had the money to train.

Please don't forget that Reagan was the Governor of California, a State with an economy greater than most countries. He had been active politically for many years before being elected President.

Being active duty under Reagan was like being a kid in a candy store and a pocket full of $100 bills. We had everything we needed, and more; a mission-ready rate approaching 100% Above all, we had the money to train.

I'll back that!! Until the Gramm-Ruddman act caught up with us! I still hate them, and hollings too!

We had everything we needed, and more; a mission-ready rate approaching 100% Above all, we had the money to train.

it's been pretty much the same way for the DoD and the intel agencies since 9-11. there was an article in the Defense News lately-- something along the lines of we've pumped in $1 trillion to the -base- DoD budget and yet the average age of our equipment continually goes up. obviously doesn't help that the opstempo is still insanely high.

my guess is that we're going to be pretty much done with iraq and afghanistan by 2014. the US military will probably need about five years after to fully reorganize, reequip and retrain. you're looking at 2020 until we can seriously look at another "iraq", assuming we have the political will for it (which probably ain't gonna happen short of a WMD, god forbid).

man, i predicted this back in 2003. sort of sucks to see it come true.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

Being active duty under Reagan was like being a kid in a candy store and a pocket full of $100 bills. We had everything we needed, and more; a mission-ready rate approaching 100% Above all, we had the money to train.

Really? My dad worked 80 hours a week fixing aircraft and he qualified for welfare as active duty under Reagan.

Originally Posted by astralis

chogy,

it's been pretty much the same way for the DoD and the intel agencies since 9-11. there was an article in the Defense News lately-- something along the lines of we've pumped in $1 trillion to the -base- DoD budget and yet the average age of our equipment continually goes up. obviously doesn't help that the opstempo is still insanely high.

my guess is that we're going to be pretty much done with iraq and afghanistan by 2014. the US military will probably need about five years after to fully reorganize, reequip and retrain. you're looking at 2020 until we can seriously look at another "iraq", assuming we have the political will for it (which probably ain't gonna happen short of a WMD, god forbid).

man, i predicted this back in 2003. sort of sucks to see it come true.

What if something flairs up before 2020 and it requires us to be there, you're saying we're not ready because we overextended? History shows pretty clearly that war doesn't operate on a politician's or general's ideal schedule.

What if something flairs up before 2020 and it requires us to be there, you're saying we're not ready because we overextended?

not all conflicts involve regime change followed by occupation. until 2020 i fully expect whatever pops up will be largely handled by a combination of the USAF and USN. right now the army and marines are pretty tapped out. we can still surge more at need, but the long-term results won't be pretty.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

astralis: until 2020 i fully expect whatever pops up will be largely handled by a combination of the USAF and USN. right now the army and marines are pretty tapped out. we can still surge more at need, but the long-term results won't be pretty.

First, let's get rid of the term surge, it's a political correctness term invented by a political strategist. Call it for what it is: deploy.

Second, of the four branches, the Army and Marines contains almost all of our "fighter" personnel. That's a pretty big gap for "whatever pops up".

there's also connotations that it's temporary and cannot be sustained indefinitely, which is also correct in terms of my sentence.

Second, of the four branches, the Army and Marines contains almost all of our "fighter" personnel. That's a pretty big gap for "whatever pops up".

in this scenario we're not talking about taking and holding territory, we're talking about bombing and deterrence. yeah, it's a big gap in capabilities but it's also the best we can do short of full-scale mobilization.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

there's also connotations that it's temporary and cannot be sustained indefinitely, which is also correct in terms of my sentence.

This is the World Affairs Board. I think most of us that post here are smart enough to deal with the connotation.

in this scenario we're not talking about taking and holding territory, we're talking about bombing and deterrence. yeah, it's a big gap in capabilities but it's also the best we can do short of full-scale mobilization.

Look at all the tiny minor conflicts the U.S. got into before Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times: the Grenadas, Somalias, Lebanons, and Serbias of the world since those conflicts with our forces can pretty aptly be described "whatever popped up". With the exception of Serbia which was just a bombing run of Belgrade, none of them would've gone off better and most in fact would've been worse if the Marines and Army could not be used.